MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412505229 · doi:10.2196/75493

Data Mining Trauma: AI-Assisted Qualitative Study of Cyber Victimization on Reddit

2025· article· en· W4412505229 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J'Andra Antisdel, Wendy R. Miller, Doyle Groves

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Infodemiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
KeywordsPreprintQualitative researchSocial mediaInternet privacyMedia studiesSociologyPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cyber victimization exposes individuals to numerous risks. Developmental and psychological factors may leave some users unaware of the potential dangers, increasing their susceptibility to psychological distress. Despite this vulnerability, methods for identifying those at risk of cyber victimization within health care settings are limited, as is research that explores their experiences of cyber victimization. The purpose of this study was to analyze how users describe experiences of cyber victimization on the social media platform Reddit (Reddit, Inc) using data mining. Objective: This study aimed to analyze and describe how users on Reddit describe and discuss their experience of cyber victimization using data mining and computational analysis of unsolicited data. Methods: This computational qualitative study used data mining, Word Adjacency Graph (WAG) modeling, and thematic analysis to analyze discussions of Reddit users surrounding cyber victimization. Inclusion criteria included posts from 2012 to 2023 from subreddits r/cyberbullying and r/bullying. GPT-4 (OpenAI), an advanced artificial intelligence language model, summarized posts and assisted in cluster labeling. Posts were reviewed to remove irrelevant content and duplicates. User anonymity was maintained throughout the study. Results: A total of 13,381 posts from 3283 Reddit were analyzed, with approximately 5.1% (n=678) originating between 2012 and 2018 and 94.9% (n=12,703) from 2019 to 2023. The WAG modeling approach identified 38 clusters, with 35 deemed to be relevant to cyber victimization experiences. Two clusters containing irrelevant material were excluded. Six overarching themes emerged: (1) psychological impact, (2) coping and healing, (3) protecting yourself online, (4) protecting yourself offline, (5) victimization across various settings, and (6) seeking meaning and understanding. Conclusions: The study highlights the effectiveness of data mining and AI in analyzing large public datasets for qualitative research. These methods can inform future studies on risky internet behavior, victimization, and assessment strategies in health care settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.545
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR InfodemiologySame topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207